Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[David Merrill]

For quite some time Pete has been fabricating the illusion that his book Cracking the Code is viable remedy by encouraging people to post their Refund Checks and when they get into trouble and want their testimony removed, banishing them from the Website (Lost Horizons). Pete is now in prison and nobody will let me onto Lost Horizons to discuss the problems people have there. - Mainly the problem is that the IRS often bills back for the Zero Income Return strategy in CtC. Often times with the $5K fine.

People are helpless to fight the Frivolous Return accusation because all that Pete offers are tired old interpretations of Title 26 - which is not postive law. None of these interpretations may be brought up in tax court. If an attorney tries to bring any of them up, he will be sanctioned without warning; that is how long they all have been failing and failing miserably.

My proposition is that once one begins to redeem lawful money, that they can apply remedy retroactively by one or both methods.

1) Stand on the accusation of Fraud by Omission. That is that the contract demanding Information and Self-Assessment (1040 Form) is vitiated by that fraud and that our civics teachers, parents and bank tellers are not to blame for the fraud, but rather are victims of the same fraud.

2) Stand on being a peaceful inhabitant. There has been some discussion here about that - being a conduit and allowing the State (by militant occupation) own the assets, but give you the usage. This involves volunteering to help the trustee settle up the account, after establishing that you know of the remedy and are consistently applying it. There is some evidence that this will "Satisfy" the IRS or DoR agent and cause setoff even for tax years prior to when the suitor began to redeem lawful money.

Which is to say, in either method Lost Horizon victims facing having to repay Refunds and $5K penalties too, who cannot should be looking seriously into applying remedy. Not just to apply remedy, but to cause Setoff and get the IRS off their backs.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

P.S. On item 2;


There is some interesting insights about the parameters of the trust being militant since 1861 and especially so from FDR's War on the Great Depression in 1933. This morning though, in the echo chamber of the brain trust (suitors) a fantastic read came to mind from the Federal Repository - The Thirteen Petalled Rose (Israel) by Adin STEINSALZ. My imagination soars to think of the Trust being signed at Exodus 24:7 and fulfilled by the Messianic Model - Jesus CHRIST as the Ultimate Blood Sacrifice so that the Income Tax is actually monetizing of sin like that righteous man of Israel would sacrifice his prize livestock to an angry God because of the Golden Calf imagery.

The part that got me wondering is a chapter in STEINSALZ's book - Repentance. Forgiveness of the debt, even before the remedy is applied is like a time machine. Repentance is like a time machine. The precept is that to acquire the blessings of being saved, the mechanism before the Messiah is Repentance! The time machine kicks in, not by turning back the clock, but by mitigating the effects of the past actions upon the man or woman in the present. This is a biblical concept of judgment - much like Karma - that you have to live with your past sins, like endorsing private credit from the Fed; but you may be freed from the effects of your past sins through repenting before God or His Son Jesus.

Interestingly, the copy in the repository is from the Benefactor himself.

[JohnnyCash]

Don't feel bad about not receiving a login to LostHorizons forum; in Pete's absence no new users have been activated. On the flip side, nobody's been banned either.

And don't be too harsh on a book you haven't read. Pete's book was a real eye-opener for me - I paid income taxes for decades thinking I really owed them! Or perhaps I should say, not knowing I could opt-out at any time (Or, wearing the chains of sin unaware that Jesus had paid the price of my freedom). Pete is largely correct, the income tax is an excise on federal privilege. He delves into Title 26 and all the custom definitions. It's a valuable contribution as far as it goes (I'm not sold on amending prior years & the Form 4852 ideas). I do think you and the suitors have a deeper understanding of the larger deception at play. And misapplied taxation is just one piece of that larger matrix. Anyway, if it wasn't for Cracking the Code I may have never discovered David Merrill & lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Granted - the Right to be Heard is a powerful thing in America. By signing a 1040 Form under the penalty of perjury the IRS agent is compelled to honor the initial assessment and send the Refund Check. Pete's book however leaves people in the lurch though, upon a reassessment based on the 1099 and W-2 Forms.

My insight, as is typical is from a suitor who was applying CtC methods to garnishments by the IRS and state DoR. He had Pete for a houseguest for strategy sessions. Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about. The suitor disclosed to me, It is all about the Right to be Heard. Since I have not read it, I am going on that testimony, that to the Reader, CtC is about something else while the real operation of law is that Taxpayer Signature under the Penalty of Perjury. Since the IRS in America is based in voluntary self-assessment that means unless the IRS agent is willing to stop processing on the spot to investigate the 1040 Return Form, he is compelled to send the Refund Check.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Brian]

I agree Johnny. Amending previous years is a quick way to add some 5K penalties. The 4852 will also bring 5K fun times as well. There may be people still getting refunds using that method but the target is painted when a 4852 comes in. Perhaps during the rush of March and April some still get thru as the service probably brings in temps to do some of the manual sorting. However once the ACS system examines the data and cross references it with what you filed an audit or deficiency will promptly follow. That takes a year or two. CtC built the border of the puzzle. Lawful money filled in most of the rest.

David...Did you not purchase the book? That is why your forum access never got activated. You had to buy the book then contact Pete via the email you used to buy the book in order to gain access to the forum.

Great topic BTW!

[David Merrill]

I agree Johnny. Amending previous years is a quick way to add some 5K penalties. The 4852 will also bring 5K fun times as well. There may be people still getting refunds using that method but the target is painted when a 4852 comes in. Perhaps during the rush of March and April some still get thru as the service probably brings in temps to do some of the manual sorting. However once the ACS system examines the data and cross references it with what you filed an audit or deficiency will promptly follow. That takes a year or two. CtC built the border of the puzzle. Lawful money filled in most of the rest.

David...Did you not purchase the book? That is why your forum access never got activated. You had to buy the book then contact Pete via the email you used to buy the book in order to gain access to the forum.

Great topic BTW!

I would not challenge for former (to redeeming lawful money by demand) years unless the IRS is getting nasty with you about paying up. We have some scientific process (LoR) going with a suitor couple for two, maybe three years with scarcely any income of any form to report - for $20K, maybe soon $30K in penalties for using Pete's book and methods. The LoR is in place and a R4C executed on the third tax year, just notified since filing.

So we will be getting a current report on the effectiveness of accusing Fraud by Omission and may work some trust structure description into the Default Judgment.

My CtC book was given to me by a suitor. I have a small collection of unread guru material. It is there on the bookshelf with the Are You Lost at C?

[Brian]

Something else that could be added to the arsenal of common law in regards to these types of potential cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover

Do these not fit the mold?

[stoneFree]

Cracking the Code is not about what it pretends to be about.

As long as you're not suggesting Mr. Hendrickson is trying to mislead. He absolutely believes in what he says, and logic says he wouldn't risk jail if he didn't. I also note a lot of time, resources & shenanigans went into the government's conviction.

Understand that the Hendricksons are NOT being ordered to testify. They already HAVE testified. The government just doesn't like what they said, so it is ordering them to change that testimony to something it likes better.

This assault on the rule of law is taking place even though the feds have never disputed the original returns the Hendricksons filed years ago. The feds have never issued "notices of deficiency", conducted audits, filed liens or ever done ANYTHING to assert any claim against these folks before bringing this "lawsuit" out of the blue, with its unique request that the defendants in the suit be ordered under threat of prison to declare that the government has an interest in their money which the government itself has never been willing to make in any of the ways that the law says it can and must.

In fact, the federal Department of Treasury has always agreed-- on its own formal Certificates of Assessment, and over the signatures of certifying officers-- that the Hendricksons owe no taxes for the years involved (2002 and 2003) and never did, and that their original returns are perfectly valid.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

I agree that filing a zero-return in the face of conflicting W2 or 1099 evidence, even though that evidence may be false or 3rd-party hearsay, is enough for the IRS to run with. Enough to get one penalized and possibly engaged in lengthy battle. I do feel that battle can be won, and showing evidence you've redeemed lawful money appears to end that battle in your favor. The DOJ/IRS seems quite reluctant to "go there" because to go there would be to reveal the banksters scam. That a sovereign nation has been deceived into borrowing all its money into existence.

[David Merrill]

Quite simply put, Pete signed endorsement of private credit from the Fed. He therefore owes a Return of that Income.

When it was put to me by the suitor who had Pete over, he was realizing it as he spoke and I am sure spoke to Pete about it too. But too late; Pete is committed to making a book work even though it is not a good method nor does it contain any remedy that can be recognized in tax court.

Pete gave his word by signature bond.

That Pete would banish people who wanted to report the trouble he had caused them with his CtC book tells quite a bit about him. And that people cannot get on the Website at all (newly discovered to me) explains a whole bunch more.


What I am talking about is that people may be able to recover from that misdirection with a Fraud by Omission countercharge based in the remedy found in full force and effect. That could get a whole bunch of people out of Pete's huge mess.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[stoneFree]

Fair enough. One thing I would like to see you (or the suitors) elaborate on is ...

.. tired old interpretations of Title 26 - which is not positive law.

This area of positive law - published in the Federal Register. This isn't entirely clear in my mind.

[David Merrill]

That might be better brought to light by people who have read the CtC book.

I have heard people discuss the faults they would be bringing up in tax court or during a criminal prosecution and the arguments I have heard would cause immediate sanctions if an attorney were to bring them up - just for wasting the court's time.

[stoneFree]

Well it's a genuine question I have for you and/or the suitors. It's something that Pete's book does not address so I'll take it to a new thread:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?270-Positive-law-private-law-amp-the-Federal-Register

[Rock Anthony]

In my opinion, for those that accept that the various income taxes are actually excises levied on the activity of banking within the Federal Reserve System:

Pete's book doesn't provide much, if anything at all, that is useful because:

If you bank within the FRS, then Title 26 applies to you. Pete's book is not going to help you.

If you do not bank within the FRS, then Title 26 does not apply to you. Again, Pete's book is not going to help you.

I have read Pete's book from cover to cover. I was almost convinced, but there were just a few things that didn't sit well with me - prosecution and conviction of Pete.

His methods just do not work. And now I know why.

[David Merrill]

Agreed.. I am one of them.. 5k penalty for the whole deal..Even though I don't really disagree with the premise of my money belonging to me. I do realize that it is because of me that they are taking it, keeping it, and holding it for some sort of ransom until I completely cave. They have the upper hand. It is going to be a daunting task for most of us to recover from the CTC way of doing things..Sorry about that. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hendrickson for at least opening my eyes to there being something wrong. But, it didn't work. And so now I and many others like me are led here. The only positive to that is at least there is a glimmer of hope that we can start from here and right the ship before we completely sink it.. Thanks everyone. And though some may not agree. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Merrill and Jesse James. I hate that there is such conflict with everyone. We are all trying to get to the same end. I hope..

Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.

[Sabo]

Fraud vitiates all contracts and you are being held to an obligation made under fraud. It really does take redeeming lawful money to understand redeeming lawful money.

Of course, the question is how to A) get them to see/admit that it's fraud, and B) provide appropriate remedy for such fraud?
Simply redeeming lawful money going forward is only part of it. How does one then say "Hey IRS, I found Lawful Money - thanks for the fraud by omission, [give back previous returns / cancel your unlawful levy / whatever your desired result is]" ?